When Treating Coexisting Low Back Pain and Hip Impairments, Focus on the Back: Adding Specific Hip Treatment Does Not Yield Additional Benefits-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; P = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; P = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; P = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; P = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; P = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):581-601. Epub 16 Nov 2021. 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10593.

Examination procedures and interventions for the hip in the management of low back pain: a survey of physical therapists.

OBJECTIVES: The main research aims were to investigate whether physical therapists are examining the hip(s) in individuals with a primary complaint of low back pain (LBP) and if so, the interventions being provided that target the hip(s). METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to the membership of the American Physical Therapy Association Orthopaedic and Sports Sections, as well as that of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists. Participant demographics and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Associations between variables were examined using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: The estimated response rate was 18.4% (n=1163, mean age 40.5±11.4 years). The majority of respondents (91%, n=1059) reported they always or most of the time examined the hip(s) in individuals with LBP. The most common examination items utilized were hip strength testing (94%, n=948), passive range of motion (91%, n=921) and muscle flexibility testing (90%, n=906). The most common interventions included hip strengthening (94%, n=866) and hip flexibility exercises (90%, n=814). Respondents enrolled in or having completed a post-professional fellowship were more likely to utilize hip joint manual therapy techniques (x2=25.3, p=<0.001) and less likely to prescribe hip flexibility exercises (x2=7.9, p=0.005) or use electrophysical modalities (x2=4.3, p=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists commonly examine and provide interventions directed at the hip(s) for individuals with LBP. Post-professional fellowship training appears to influence the intervention selection of the physical therapist, with an increase in usage of hip joint manual therapy and a decrease in hip muscle flexibility and modality usage.

Effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for low back pain targeting the low back only or low back plus hips: a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that physical therapy interventions targeting the hips may improve outcomes, including pain and disability, for patients with low back pain (LBP). Currently, there is conflicting data in regard to whether an individual with LBP needs to have a concurrent hip impairment in order to respond to this approach. The purpose of this clinical trial will be to determine the short and long-term effectiveness of physical therapy interventions directed at the lumbar spine only, versus lumbar spine and hip(s), in individuals with a primary complaint of LBP with a concurrent hip impairment. METHODS: A multi-center, randomized controlled trial of 76 adult individuals with a primary complaint of LBP, who also have at least one concurrent hip impairment. Participants will be randomized into the 'LBP only' or 'LBP+Hip' group. Treatment to the low back in both groups will be a pragmatic approach consisting of interventions targeting the low back without targeting the hip(s). Participants randomized to the LBP+Hip group will also receive a semi-prescriptive set of manual therapy and exercise techniques that target the hips. The primary outcome measures will be the modified Oswestry Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale at discharge. DISCUSSION: These two treatment strategies are commonly utilized in physical therapy practice, but there is uncertainty which is superior. This trial will also help to provide a better understanding of the role of concurrent hip impairments in LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID# NCT03550014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03550014) on June 7, 2018.

Variables Describing Individuals With Improved Pain and Function With a Primary Complaint of Low Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify descriptive factors in individuals with a primary complaint of low back pain (LBP) associated with improved pain and function after receiving physical therapy for LBP with or without manual therapy and exercise directed at the femoroacetabular joints. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial investigating physical therapy interventions for their LBP, with or without interventions directed at the femoroacetabular joints (hips). A participant was deemed recovered if all of the following were met: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of ≤2 points, ≤10% on the modified Oswestry Disability Index at discharge, and a global rating of change score of +4 at both 2 weeks and discharge. Logistic regression modelling determined descriptor variables that best predicted treatment recovery. RESULTS: Data from 90 participants were included in the analysis, with 44% (n = 40) achieving recovery by discharge from physical therapy (average 7.95 [±4.68]) visits. The variables of concurrent hip problems, lower body mass index ≤25.4, an irritable condition, and a baseline NPRS score of 4 points or less were retained in the final model (R2 = .384). Having a concurrent hip problem had the highest odds of achieving recovery in the model (odds ratio: 5.34, 95 % confidence interval: 1.31-21.8). CONCLUSIONS: The findings for the patients in this study suggest that those with a concurrent hip problem, a lower body mass index, irritable symptoms, and a baseline NPRS score of 4 points or less were associated with greater odds of achieving recovery with multimodal physical therapy interventions. Further research should continue to investigate the interplay between the lumbar spine and hip joints.

Examination of the Validity of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Shoulder Pain Likely to Benefit From Cervicothoracic Manipulation.

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Background Prognostic variables identifying patients with shoulder pain who are likely to respond to cervicothoracic manipulation have been reported; however, they have yet to be validated. Objective To examine the validity of previously reported prognostic variables in predicting which patients with shoulder pain will respond to cervicothoracic manipulation. Methods Participants (n = 140) with a report of shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive either 2 sessions of range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises (exercise group), or 2 sessions of cervicothoracic manipulation and range-of-motion exercises followed by 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulative-therapy-plus-exercise group). Outcomes of disability (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) and pain (numeric pain-rating scale) were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Time, treatment group, status of predictor variables, and 2-way and 3-way interactions were analyzed using linear mixed models with repeated measures. Results There were no significant 3-way interactions for either disability (P = .27) or pain scores (P = .70) for time, group, and predictor status for any of the predictor variables. Conclusion The results of the current study did not validate the previously identified prognostic variables; therefore, we cannot support using these in clinical practice. Further updating of the existing prediction rule may be warranted and could potentially result in new prognostic variables and improved generalizability. Limitations of the study were a mean duration of symptoms of greater than 2 years and a loss to follow-up of 19% at 6 months. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. Trial prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):252-260. Epub 3 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100.

Cervicothoracic Manual Therapy Plus Exercise Therapy Versus Exercise Therapy Alone in the Management of Individuals With Shoulder Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Study Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Background Cervicothoracic manual therapy has been shown to improve pain and disability in individuals with shoulder pain, but the incremental effects of manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy have not been investigated in a randomized controlled trial. Objectives To compare the effects of cervicothoracic manual therapy and exercise therapy to those of exercise therapy alone in individuals with shoulder pain. Methods Individuals (n = 140) with shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive 2 sessions of cervicothoracic range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy, or 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy and range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy (manual therapy plus exercise). Pain and disability were assessed at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (treatment group by time) was examined using linear mixed-model analyses and the repeated measure of time for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the numeric pain-rating scale, and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Patient-perceived success was assessed and analyzed using the global rating of change (GROC) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), using chi-square tests of independence. Results There were no significant 2-way interactions of group by time or main effects by group for pain or disability. Both groups improved significantly on the SPADI, numeric pain-rating scale, and QuickDASH. Secondary outcomes of success on the GROC and PASS significantly favored the manual therapy-plus-exercise group at 4 weeks (P = .03 and P<.01, respectively) and on the GROC at 6 months (P = .04). Conclusion Adding 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy to an exercise program did not improve pain or disability in patients with shoulder pain, but did improve patient-perceived success at 4 weeks and 6 months and acceptability of symptoms at 4 weeks. More research is needed on the use of cervicothoracic manual therapy for treating shoulder pain. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(8):617-628. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6319.

Interrater reliability of the cervicothoracic and shoulder physical examination in patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the interrater reliability of cervicothoracic and shoulder physical examination in patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain. DESIGN: Single-group repeated-measures design for interrater reliability. SETTING: Orthopaedic physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain underwent a standardized examination by a physical therapist (PT). A PT conducted the first examination and one of two additional PTs conducted the 2nd examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Cohen κ and weighted κ were used to calculate the interrater reliability of ordinal level data. Intraclass correlation coefficients model 2,1 (ICC2,1) and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the interrater reliability. RESULTS: The kappa coefficients ranged from -.24 to .83 for the mobility assessment of the glenohumeral, acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joints. The kappa coefficients ranged from -.20 to .58 for joint mobility assessment of the cervical and thoracic spine. The kappa coefficients ranged from .23 to 1.0 for special tests of the shoulder and cervical spine. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported the reliability of a comprehensive upper quarter physical examination for a group of patients with a primary report of shoulder pain. The reliability varied considerably for the cervical and shoulder examination and was significantly higher for the examination of muscle length and cervical range of motion.

Clinical decision making in a patient with secondary hip-spine syndrome.

The prevalence of lumbar and hip pathology is on the rise; however, treatment outcomes have not improved, highlighting the difficulty in identifying and treating the correct impairments. The purpose of this case report is to describe the clinical decision making in the examination and treatment of an individual with secondary hip-spine syndrome. Our case study was a 62-year-old male with low back pain with concomitant right hip pain. His Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 18%, back numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) was 4/10, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) work subscale was 0, FABQ physical activity subscale was 18, and patient specific functional scale (PSFS) was 7.33. Physical examination revealed findings consistent with secondary hip-spine syndrome. He was treated for four visits with joint mobilization/manipulation and strengthening exercises directed at the hip. At discharge, all standardized outcome measures achieved full resolution. Clinical decision making in the presence of lumbopelvic-hip pain is often difficult. Previous literature has shown that some patients with lumbopelvic-hip pain respond favorably to manual therapy and exercise targeting regions adjacent to the lumbar spine. The findings of this case report suggest that individuals with a primary complaint of LBP with hip impairments may benefit from interventions to reduce hip impairments.

A treatment-based classification approach to examination and intervention of lumbar disorders.

CONTEXT: Low back injuries are a common occurrence in athletes and often result in missed competition and practice time. The examination of athletes with low back pain commonly involves diagnostic imaging, which rarely guides the clinician in selecting the appropriate interventions. DATA ACQUISITION: All years of PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus were searched in December 2010. Keywords included treatment based classification and lumbar with the following terms: rehabilitation, treatment, athlete, low back pain, sports, and outcomes. RESULTS: A treatment-based classification approach is preferred for the management of the athlete with low back pain. The treatment-based classification approach involves 3 steps. First is to screen the patient for potentially serious conditions that are not appropriate for conservative management. Second is staging the athlete (based on current disability ratings and ability to perform functional activities). Finally, treatment interventions are selected on the basis of the athlete's signs and symptoms. CONCLUSION: The treatment-based classification scheme provides the clinician with a reliable algorithm for matching an athlete's symptom presentation to the optimal intervention, potentially reducing participation loss. Managing individuals with low back pain using a treatment-based classification approach significantly reduces disability and pain compared with current clinical practice guideline standards.

Short-term response of hip mobilizations and exercise in individuals with chronic low back pain: a case series.

STUDY DESIGN: A case series of consecutive patients with chronic low back pain. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), the importance of impairments at the hip joints is unclear. However, it has been postulated that impairments at the hip joints may contribute to CLBP. The purpose of this case series was to investigate the short-term outcomes in patients with CLBP managed with impairment-based manual therapy and exercise directed at the hip joints. METHODS: EIGHT CONSECUTIVE PATIENTS (MEAN AGE: 43·9 years) with a primary report of CLBP (>6 months) without radiculopathy were treated with a standardized approach of manual physical therapy and exercise directed at bilateral hip impairments for a total of three sessions over approximately 1 week. At initial examination, all patients completed a numeric rating pain scale (NPRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), and patient-specific functional scale (PSFS). At the second and third treatment sessions, each patient completed all outcome measures as well as the Global Rating of Change (GROC). RESULTS: Five of the eight (62·5%) patients reported 'moderately better' or higher (>+4) on the GROC at the third session, indicating a moderate improvement in self-reported symptoms. These five individuals also experienced a 24·4% reduction in ODI scores. DISCUSSION: This case series suggests that an impairment-based approach directed at the hip joints may lead to improvements in pain, function, and disability in patients with CLBP. A neurophysiologic mechanism may be a plausible explanation regarding the clinical outcomes of this study. A larger, well-controlled trial is needed to determine the potential effectiveness of this approach with patients with CLBP.

Sign of the buttock following total hip arthroplasty.

The patient was a 68-year-old man who had undergone a right total hip arthroplasty 3 years prior. He complained of progressively worsening right hip pain. Physical examination findings were consistent with a positive sign of the buttock. A triple-bone scan showed increased radio-pharmaceutical activity, which is consistent with infection. Subsequent aspiration of the right hip revealed infection, which was treated with antibiotics before the patient underwent a revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(6):377. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.0410.